ANALYSIS – Well, according to the media that is what former President Donald Trump's lawyers are saying. In a bizarre exchange in court, Trump attorney John Sauer argued that, under certain circumstances, a president could order SEAL Team Six (more accurately known as DevGru) to assassinate a domestic political rival and not face prosecution.
But the scenario is silly and the truth is a bit more complicated.
While no president is supposed to be above the law. And no president has absolute immunity or can commit crimes with impunity (the ability to act without negative consequences), no former president has ever been indicted before in our nation's history, either.
Why? Because the Founding Fathers were far more concerned about presidents facing politicalized persecutions masquerading as criminal prosecutions, than with them getting away with murder.
What Trump's lawyers are arguing is that a president has presidential immunity (freedom from prosecution) for any conduct done as “official acts” while he is president. In order to criminally prosecute a president, he must first be impeached and convicted by Congress.
In this view of the Constitution, that political action is what removes his presidential immunity. As Business Insider noted flippantly in its headline: “President can have rival assassinated if Congress is OK with it.”
It's a silly example. But it makes headlines, and that's why the judge brought it.
During questioning from Judge Florence Pan, nominated by Biden in 2022, and one member of the three-judge panel from the D.C. Court of Appeals hearing Trump's case, one hypothetical scenario was raised about a president assassinating a rival as an official act ordering our Tier One SEALs to do it.
Of course, this deliberately absurd scenario ignores the fact that no American military unit or personnel would obey that clearly unlawful order. We are all duty, and legally, bound to ignore or refuse unlawful orders.
But Judge Pan asked anyway: “Could a president who ordered SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution.”
To which Sauer replied: “If he were impeached and convicted first.” Judge Pan then said: “So your answer is no.” Sauer repeated his point by saying: “My answer is qualified. Yes. There's a political process that will have to occur under the structure of our Constitution, which would require impeachment and conviction by the Senate in these exceptional cases…”
This elicited a shocked response from opposing counsel, reported the New York Post: “What kind of world are we living in” if a president could use the state to assassinate a political rival and not be prosecuted for it, asked assistant special counsel James Pearce.
Pearce, arguing on behalf of special counsel Jack Smith, added that it would be a “frightening future” if a president couldn't be held accountable for crimes and said the sweeping presidential immunity that Sauer was suggesting would put a commander-in-chief “above the law.”
But Sauer fired back later, saying: “The frightening future [Pearce] alleges where presidents are very, very, seldom, if ever, prosecuted because they have to be impeached and convicted first is the one we have lived under for the last 235 years.”
“That's not a frightening future. That's our republic.”
Sauer then made the more important constitutional point that the founders were much more worried political opponents using criminal prosecution to discipline presidents.
He added:
They were much more concerned about the abuse of the criminal process for political purposes, to disable the presidency from factions and political opponents. And, of course, that's exactly what we see in this case.
Using a more realistic scenario of a president selling pardons, which Judge Pan also brought up, Sauer said:
…the sale of pardons example is an excellent example, because there were allegations about a sale of a pardon, essentially, when it came to President Clinton's, uh, pardon of Marc Rich and the US DOJ, carefully and for the very reasons we've emphasized in our brief, decided not to prosecute President Clinton with that because it raised concerns about whether or not a president could be prosecuted for his official acts…
Perhaps these judges, and the media should focus on these more realistic scenarios, and try to better understand the founders' intent, rather than make up nonsense about a president openly and “officially” killing his rival and getting away with it.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of American Liberty News.
READ NEXT: Epstein's Brother Drops Nuke On Fmr. Republican Star
Media Claims Trump Lawyers Argued President Can Order SEALs To Eliminate Rivals
Kamala Harris’ 2005 Controversial Drug Policy Proposal Resurfaces
In 2005, then-San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris introduced a controversial proposal to delay prosecution of drug dealers until their third offense. The plan faced swift opposition and was quickly rejected by law enforcement officials.
Harris' proposal suggested that individuals caught selling narcotics would not face charges until they had been arrested for the same offense at least three times. The idea was part of a broader effort to reform the city's approach to drug crime, focusing resources on more serious offenders while.
Biden Admits Inflation Reduction Act Was Deceptively Named
Dick Cheney Endorses Kamala Harris, Calls Trump Greatest Threat To US Democracy
Ex-Clinton Pollster Rips Democrats For RFK Jr. Ballot Antics
Largest & Oldest Police Union In The Country Endorses Trump
ANALYSIS – Well, according to the media that is what former President Donald Trump's lawyers are saying. In a bizarre exchange in court, Trump attorney John Sauer argued that, under certain circumstances, a president could order SEAL Team Six (more accurately known as DevGru) to assassinate a domestic political rival and not face prosecution.
But the scenario is silly and the truth is a bit more complicated.
While no president is supposed to be above the law. And no president has absolute immunity or can commit crimes with impunity (the ability to act without negative consequences), no former president has ever been indicted before in our nation's history, either.
Why? Because the Founding Fathers were far more concerned about presidents facing politicalized persecutions masquerading as criminal prosecutions, than with them getting away with murder.
What Trump's lawyers are arguing is that a president has presidential immunity (freedom from prosecution) for any conduct done as “official acts” while he is president. In order to criminally prosecute a president, he must first be impeached and convicted by Congress.
In this view of the Constitution, that political action is what removes his presidential immunity. As Business Insider noted flippantly in its headline: “President can have rival assassinated if Congress is OK with it.”
It's a silly example. But it makes headlines, and that's why the judge brought it.
During questioning from Judge Florence Pan, nominated by Biden in 2022, and one member of the three-judge panel from the D.C. Court of Appeals hearing Trump's case, one hypothetical scenario was raised about a president assassinating a rival as an official act ordering our Tier One SEALs to do it.
Of course, this deliberately absurd scenario ignores the fact that no American military unit or personnel would obey that clearly unlawful order. We are all duty, and legally, bound to ignore or refuse unlawful orders.
But Judge Pan asked anyway: “Could a president who ordered SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution.”
To which Sauer replied: “If he were impeached and convicted first.” Judge Pan then said: “So your answer is no.” Sauer repeated his point by saying: “My answer is qualified. Yes. There's a political process that will have to occur under the structure of our Constitution, which would require impeachment and conviction by the Senate in these exceptional cases…”
This elicited a shocked response from opposing counsel, reported the New York Post: “What kind of world are we living in” if a president could use the state to assassinate a political rival and not be prosecuted for it, asked assistant special counsel James Pearce.
Pearce, arguing on behalf of special counsel Jack Smith, added that it would be a “frightening future” if a president couldn't be held accountable for crimes and said the sweeping presidential immunity that Sauer was suggesting would put a commander-in-chief “above the law.”
But Sauer fired back later, saying: “The frightening future [Pearce] alleges where presidents are very, very, seldom, if ever, prosecuted because they have to be impeached and convicted first is the one we have lived under for the last 235 years.”
“That's not a frightening future. That's our republic.”
Sauer then made the more important constitutional point that the founders were much more worried political opponents using criminal prosecution to discipline presidents.
He added:
Using a more realistic scenario of a president selling pardons, which Judge Pan also brought up, Sauer said:
Perhaps these judges, and the media should focus on these more realistic scenarios, and try to better understand the founders' intent, rather than make up nonsense about a president openly and “officially” killing his rival and getting away with it.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of American Liberty News.
READ NEXT: Epstein's Brother Drops Nuke On Fmr. Republican Star
Paul Crespo
Kamala Harris’ 2005 Controversial Drug Policy Proposal Resurfaces
Search
follow us
subscribe
Trending Stories
ABC News Releases Rules For Trump-Harris Debate
ABC News released the rules that both RepublicanTim Walz Called ‘Coward,’ Military ‘Impersonator’ By Fellow Soldiers
ANALYSIS – Dishonorable veteran. I have been hittingWill China Retake Its Lost Lands In Russia’s Siberia?
ANALYSIS – It could happen. "May we liveDangerous Obsession: Secret Service Records Reveal DEI Is Top Priority For All Agency Employees In ‘Every Action, Every Day’
Despite being tasked with the critically-important task ofCommentary
Gun Controlling Brazil’s Ban On X And Free Speech Not Only Predictable But Inevitable
Biden Administration Uses ‘KKK Act’ To Charge Christians Protesting At Abortion Clinics
WEF Makes Another Move To Force Us Into Submission
Criminal Biden Speaks Out – His Latest Statement Will Make You Sick
Security
Report: Texas Oil Company Warns Employees Of Migrant Gangs As Attacks Surge
What Will US Military Leaders Do In An Election Crisis?
US Marines Join South Koreans In Major Amphibious Drill
Report: Justice Department Accuses Russia Of Election Interference, Announces Indictments
Foreign Affairs
Gun Controlling Brazil’s Ban On X And Free Speech Not Only Predictable But Inevitable
Blaze Media Fires Lauren Chen Over Allegations Of Taking Kremlin Cash
FBI Seizes Phones Of NYPD Commissioner, Top Aides In Expanding Probe Into NYC Mayor
Knives Out: After Virtually Outlawing Guns, UK Officials Now Coming After Knives
Business & economics
Biden Admits Inflation Reduction Act Was Deceptively Named
Services And Manufacturing Industries Facing Severe Challenges – What’s Behind The Numbers?
August Private Payrolls Rise By Just 99,000, Marking Smallest Gain Since 2021
Gas Prices Drop Sharply – The Canary In The Coal Mine For An Impending Economic Crisis
heath & science
James Darren, Known For ‘Gidget’ And ‘TJ Hooker,’ Dies At Age 88
Governor Youngkin’s ‘It Only Takes One’ Campaign Aims To Tackle Fentanyl Crisis
Zuckerberg Admits Regret Over Facebook’s COVID Collusion – See The Details
Vance: Trump Would Veto Any Federal Abortion Ban
American Liberty Arms
Former Rep. Gabbard On ‘No Fly List’ Should Concern All Gun Owners
California Gun Control Fails To Prevent 49ers Player From Being Shot, Nearly Killed
Comer Accuses Harris Team Of Possible Conspiracy In Glock Legal Battle
Naked Intruder’s Bizarre Standoff With LAPD Ends In A Blaze Of Bullets
At American Liberty News, we eschew the mainstream media’s tightly controlled narrative to provide our readers with real news, real insights, and the means to take action. We seek out insightful coverage – and partner with knowledgeable and experienced people and organizations to bring you the information and insight our readers demand.
We humbly seek to provide the tools and information necessary for our readers to decide for themselves what is true and what is right.
TOP TAGS
TOP CATEGORIES
FEATURES
American Liberty News ©2022
Evolution Digital Media | 1900 Reston Metro Plz | Suite 600 | Reston, VA 20190